200. As indicated by TOF-2’s May 2019 judgment, on July 5, 1996 “Carlos Alberto Telleldín, after receiving a telephone call from his partner Ana Maria Boragni, who let him know of the success of the first payment, provided -as agreed with Juan Jose Galeano- a new statement in the proceedings […] on the occasion, he offered a version of the events different from the previous ones, indicating that on July 10, 1994 he delivered the Trafic van -whose engine was found among the rubble of the AMIA headquarters- to personnel from the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires, more precisely from the Lanús and Vicente López Brigades”193. 201. Telleldín's statement of July 5, 1996, together with those provided by some people from his inner circle in the following days, formed the basis of the accusation constructed by Galeano against the Buenos Aires police officers Juan Jose Ribelli, Raúl Edilio Ibarra, Anastasio Irineo Leal, and Mario Norberto Barreto. The aforementioned officers were detained, investigated, and finally, on July 31, 1996, prosecuted as essential participants in the attack194. In February 2000, Judge Galeano brought the case against Telleldín and the police officers to oral proceedings, accused of being part of the so-called “local connection” of the attack. 202. The Federal Oral Criminal Court 3, by virtue of the irregularities set forth throughout this chapter summarized in the press release attached to the judgment dated October 29, 2004- declared the nullity of all the proceedings from the beginning of the investigation against the Buenos Aires police officers and ordered that testimonies be extracted in order to investigate the criminal responsibility of a series of people who participated in the investigatory phase, including Judge Galeano and various officials of the judiciary, police, the SIDE, and the Executive branch195. 203. Finally, it should be noted that, in order to “give a complete response to the legitimate expectations of knowing the truth of what happened, brought into this debate by the victims and by society,”196 the TOF 3 carried out a broad analysis of the existing evidence on file. Within the framework of this task, the court reached the conclusion that "it has not been proven that on July 10, 1994 [...] or on any other date, Carlos Alberto Telleldín handed over any Renault Trafic van to the accused former Buenos Aires policemen"197 and reiterated that “the statement provided by Telleldín on July 5, 1996, in which he formally introduces the accusation against the former Buenos Aires policemen for the attack, was the result of the simultaneous payment made by State representatives with the undeniable intervention of the instructing judge, Dr. Juan José Galeano”198. -Commission’s Considerations 204. The Commission observes that during the investigation conducted by Federal Criminal Court No. 9, at least two serious irregularities occurred. 205. First of all, the Commission notes - in line with the statements reviewed at the national level - that as of 1995 the officials in charge of conducting the investigation allowed and facilitated that third parties not directly linked to the judicial investigation met Carlos Telleldín , who up to that moment was the only detainee charged with having participated in the attack on the AMIA. 206. The State did not prove that these informal meetings were foreseen in any procedural norm in force at that time. Likewise, these meetings were carried out by state actors -as Judge Riva Aramayo was at that timeor by people who either identified themselves as agents of the intelligence services, as in the case of Daniel Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 574. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 194 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 644. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 195 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter XVI. B Conclusion. Pages 4696 to 4705. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 196 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter X.A. Right to the Truth. Page 3751. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 197 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter X. C. Page 4546. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 198 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter X. C. Page 4547. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 193 40